G. True Nelson: Former Deputy Sheriff, Military Officer, FBI Special Agent, and Security Consultant / Private Investigator. He currently resides in the Portland, Oregon Metro area. He is a writer on crime and judicial process; as well as discussing his personal observations on American culture and social mores.

RETURN

Saturday, May 30, 2015

In a few days, Kyron Horman will have been missing for five
years. I’ve discussed this case exhaustively
in the past. I won’t attempt to
reiterate details of the case. Those of
you reading this post are already familiar with the public facts, indications and
suspicions; many of you know the case better than I do.

The Multnomah County Sheriff is offering a $50,000 reward to
anyone providing information that leads to “the resolution of his disappearance.” This is a ‘boiler-plate’ offer, which relies
heavily on carefully phrased legalese.
It is doubtful that it will bring significant results, especially after
five years. The reward-offer implies,
and would expect, considerable commitment from someone, including testifying in
court, national exposure, etc. This type
of reward offer, admittedly typical, does not generally sound enticing to the
type of person, at this juncture, who might know Kyron’s whereabouts.

I would recommend a more straightforward reward, in
conjunction with the above reward, something like: ‘$25,000 leading to the location of Kyron
Horman, anonymity assured;’ with the required procedure to follow for obtaining the reward set forth. This
could be a reward sponsored by the family and monitored by an entity independent
of law enforcement – possibly an attorney.

What do we know about the case, five years after the fact?

The initial investigation was probably inept; conducted by a
law enforcement agency with little experience in major crimes of this nature.

Law enforcement, the Sheriff’s Office and the Multnomah
County Prosecutor, have been unwilling to acknowledge suspects or define that a
crime has been actually committed – any crime by anyone – in Kyron's disappearance.

One or more individuals (potential suspects or accessories)
have refused to cooperate in the investigation, hiding behind attorneys and
their Constitutional protections against ‘self-incrimination.’

The public school, from which Kyron disappeared, could or
should have been faulted for its lack of appropriate monitoring of the children, and
poor or inadequate security measures.
But, apparently, said elementary school has been designated faultless by
the authorities, the news-media and the public.

Saturday, May 23, 2015

Who would benefit from the development of a ‘Smart Gun?’ Potentially, if perfected (which they aren’t),
all of us.

As you might recall from my previous post, the
iP1 is a .22 caliber pistol (not pictured at right). The iP1 could be a good personal protection weapon for the ‘beginner’ gun handler. It’s light.
And, the recoil is minimal.

Most
gun enthusiasts, however, would consider it little more than a conversation
piece, a possible collector's item, a target pistol, and of no consequence in an actual survival or combat
situation. The reason for the .22
caliber of the iP1 is the associated lack of recoil.
A heavy recoil would be hard on the internal circuit board; and,
perhaps, lead to malfunction. Therefore,
military personnel wouldn’t be interested, nor would police, nor would serious
competitive shooters.

That said, the technology could evolve to include larger
calibers and/or improved (more deadly) bullets.
I know the anti-gun folks don’t like the sound of that. Nonetheless, regarding bullets, most law
enforcement agencies now use ‘hollow-points,’ for their shock-impact value and the
resulting, immediately-disabling wound.

It should be noted that a perfected ‘Smart Gun’ would be a
tremendous step forward in police officer safety. “According to FBI statistics, 33 police
officers were murdered with their own weapons,” between 2004 and 2013.

Fortune Magazine pointed out the many accidental shootings
by children of other children or even adults. Fortune cited the tragic incident in an Idaho Wal-Mart when a
two-year-old reached into his mother’s purse, which was sitting in the shopping
cart, took the gun out, pulled the trigger and killed his mother. A ‘Smart Gun’ might have prevented that accident. But, I suppose safe gun-handling practices would also
have prevented it.

So, who would be against the ‘Smart Gun’ if, theoretically, it could be perfected?

Well, it seems most folks interested in guns (pro and con) – at least for now - are against it.
Why?

The NRA isn’t exactly against ‘Smart Guns,’ but they are
against any accompanying mandates. Like,
for example, outlawing other guns not so designed. However, law makers love mandates. It’s their nature. It gives the appearance of doing something constructive. And, State Legislative bodies (particularly New Jersey) have considered, even tried,
establishing laws prohibiting gun ownership - other than ‘Smart Guns.’ This is a potential way to tax, license, regulate,
perhaps make illegal, most guns – their real objective.

Trial lawyers have expressed the opinion that manufacturers
of traditional guns could be sued on the same basis as cigarette companies – on
the premise that guns that don’t possess ‘smart’ technology are inherently
dangerous to the public. Unless some
legislative protections are put in place to protect ‘Smart Gun’ manufacturers,
they will be unwilling to risk the necessary investment and potential liabilities.

Many folks are against any guns, particularly handguns, and
consider a ‘smart’ handgun to be unnecessary and basically an oxymoron. They state that there is no such thing as a
smart or safe handgun and that they should all be banned. An untenable position that runs head-on into
those who appreciate guns for various reasons; not to mention the 2nd
Amendment.

My opinion: ‘Smart
guns’ could be a good thing, a very good thing. They should be promoted and perfected. However, manufacturers and gun innovators
should be protected from punitive lawsuits.
Who knows, maybe 50 or 100 years from now, all guns will be ‘Smart Guns’
and others not so enhanced will be considered antiques.

But, that’s then and this is now.

On a lighter note, I was hoping that the development of ‘smart’
golf clubs was on the horizon – and the sooner the better.

Thursday, May 21, 2015

I read an interesting article in the current edition of ‘Fortune
Magazine,’ titled “Smart Guns – They’re Ready.
Are We?” This article contains
information that should be of interest to all, regardless of whether you love
guns or hate them.

The article’s poster child (so-to-speak) is the Armatix iP1,
.22 Caliber, (pictured) with a projected purchase price of $1800. I won’t attempt to explain the RFID (radio
frequency identification) technology. But,
basically, the gun’s owner wears a watch or bracelet, or some other similar device;
and when the gun is farther then approximately one foot from the owner, and his
device, it won’t fire. The technology is
battery operated. However, the manufacture
states the batteries will last for approximately one thousand shots and a red
light will flash when the batteries grow weak.

This sounded like a good idea – at least for some. However, personally, I wouldn’t want such a
gun for several reasons, not the least of which is the high price. I’ve had considerable training with guns and I’m
very comfortable with them. I’m old
school. ‘You load the gun. You point the gun. You squeeze the trigger and it goes bang.’ A quality gun and ammunition completes this
cycle 100% of the time. In the proper hands guns are very safe.

That said, the iP1 sounded like a valid alternative for some
less trained individuals, who for various reasons might require a gun for
protection.

When I was doing security consulting / private
investigations, I would occasionally get requests for help from women being
stalked. They were scared, often with
good cause. There are several things
that a woman, or sometimes a man, can do in these situations to protect
themselves. But, the bottom line, I
would tell these folks, is that if you were depending on the police to protect you
– good luck. At best, the police would
arrive too late to help you; but in time to conduct the crime scene
investigation.

I would advise these
women to get a gun, get some professional training with the gun, and do not aspire
to be one more crime statistic. Take
charge of your own safety – your own life.
The unfortunate side of this advice was that these potential victims
might actually acquire a gun, but didn’t think they needed any training. Consequently, they were petrified to even
handle the gun; and often hid it away where it wouldn’t be available if they
should require it. Some would later tell
me that their greatest fear was the possibility that the stalker would take the gun
and use it on them.

But I digress.
Apparently, the iP1 will not be commercially available anytime soon. Why?
The concept is being opposed by two factions, the pro-guns’ faction and the anti-guns’ faction. Seems
strange doesn’t it? I’ll explain.

Thursday, May 14, 2015

When you read about
those who are advocating for a Presidential pardon for Leonard Peltier, Robert
Redford seems to be one of the principals pushing that action. I’m always suspicious of celebrities. What exactly is their real motive?

For example, Robert
Redford is a very rich man; a pampered, insulated man. If he was sincerely concerned about Leonard
Peltier, one might ask why he doesn’t just open his wallet and hire the best
attorney in town for Leonard. But, you
see, Redford isn’t going to do that. He
gets more play for his money advocating a cause. It’s trendy – gives him something to talk
about at cocktail parties I suppose; makes his life seem just a bit more meaningful,
maybe even benefits his career in certain circles.

Furthermore, Redford knows
that the attorney route wouldn’t work anyway.
Peltier has already appealed his case through various legal channels;
and those appeals have all failed. So,
Mr. Redford will pursue the Presidential Pardon route. He knows President Obama is probably
receptive to the idea – the President being a celebrity junky in his own
right. And, hell, screw the FBI
Agents. They’ve been dead for forty
years anyway – who really cares.

Some of the other
celebrities like Willie Nelson and Pamela Anderson – well, does anyone really
take anything they say seriously?

I guess my questions for
Mr. Redford would be, ‘Will you really be happy when Leonard Peltier, a
convicted murderer, walks?’ ‘Will you
invite him to your home?’ ‘Introduce him
to your family?’ ‘Really?’

As a young Agent who
spent a couple of months at Wounded Knee, on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation,
during the 1973 dust-up, I do take this a little personally. The thought does cross my mind that this
could have been me.

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

The
casual reader, regarding the murders of FBI Agents John L. Coler and Ronald L.
Williams (1975 – Pine Ridge Indian Reservation), might presume that Leonard
Peltier, convicted for the Agents’ murders, has been unjustly convicted. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

But,
you say, what about all of Peltier’s alleged supporters to include such
luminaries as: Mother Teresa, Desmond
Tutu, Robert Redford, Jane Fonda, Willie Nelson, Pamela Anderson, Common (he was great in 'Hell on Wheels') et al.

Well,
I did research this. And, if you’d like
to do your own research, make sure the Excedrin is close-by. There seems to be a flood of information with
little specificity. The bottom line, as
I see it, is that Peltier has become a cause
célèbre
to American Indians and those others who wish to be sympathetic to their plight
(a plight that is allegedly ubiquitous; but difficult for most to define); often categorizing
Peltier as a ‘political prisoner,’ whatever that means.

The name Mother Teresa caused me pause – a reportedly saintly person. How could one doubt her sincerity or authenticity? What about Desmond Tutu? What about the European Parliament (Did you
know there was such an organization)?
Yes, they weighed-in too.

Well,
it gets a little sketchy – to say the least.
It appears that Mother Teresa may have opined at one point that Mr.
Peltier wasn’t getting proper medical attention. Others, mostly what we would normally
consider ‘leftists,’ or perhaps ‘far leftists,' have contended the evidence
against Peltier was not only flawed, but was actually fabricated by the FBI;
and, as a result, Peltier did not get a fair trial. But, there is nothing tangible; mostly smoke
and vague generalities.

Understand that
Peltier had five notable, highly qualified and experienced defense attorneys at
his trial and has had subsequent various courts review that trial process –
including the U.S. Supreme Court. And, guess
what? They haven’t found a problem.

One
aspect that keeps being repeated is that “prosecutors” have allegedly said that
they are not certain that Peltier actually killed the Agents. However, it does not seem to be refuted that
he (Peltier) was actually there. Somebody,
shot the Agents at close range. Peltier
was there. I hate to quote one of my
least favorite politicians, but it seems appropriate here: “What difference does it make?”

This
is not funny. It is deadly serious. But, it kind of reminds me of a possible
Three Stooges skit. ‘You shoot them.’ ‘No, here’s the gun, you shoot them.’ ‘No, I don’t want to, you do it.’ ‘I’m not going to do it, you do it.’ All the while the wounded Agents wait on the
ground for these, ah, 'socially challenged activists' to decide who the executioner will be.

Before I
criticize, I always research the writer.
I want to make sure that he is not twenty-one and recently graduated
from journalism school. I wouldn’t want
to rain on a young person’s parade.
However, Mr. Tims looks old enough to know better.

Leonard Peltier’s son, Chauncey, is apparently renewing the ‘fight’
to free his father, the murderous, unrepentant Leonard Peltier. OK, sons often overlook the sins of their
fathers, and even sometimes put a glossy spin on their fathers’ past escapades. You know ‘boys will be boys’ or ‘it was just
the times’ or ‘his actions were justified due to some murky wrong or cause.’ However, that doesn’t warrant Mr. Tims’
softball approach to writing about the murders of two FBI Agents (John L. Coler
and Ronald A. Williams) on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota
(1975).

Tims describes the murders as the result of a “shootout,” as
if it was something like the ‘shootout at the OK Corral.’ Well, let’s get this straight. The FBI Agents were outgunned, with their revolvers,
and were ambushed by Peltier et al who were armed with rifles, located a
considerable distance away.

The ‘shootout:’ Coler and Williams fired a grand total of
five rounds. However, the Agents’ car
had a total of 125 bullet holes. This
did not, of course, account for the incoming rounds that missed the car or shattered
windows in the car. Agent Coler was hit
in the arm which reportedly nearly severed it.
Williams, also wounded, attempted to stem the blood flow from Coler’s
arm by wrapping his own shirt around the wound.

Coler, probably near death, and Williams wounded were
approached by Peltier and friends. The
Agents were executed at close range, two bullets to Coler’s head, and one
bullet to Williams’ head. Williams had a
defensive wound to his hand which he held in front of his face. The bullet went through his hand into his
head.

9-22-91, Peltier admitted, on the television program “60 Minutes,”
that he shot at the Agents.

In an elaborate trial, with five defense attorneys, Peltier
was convicted on two counts of ‘First Degree Murder.’ Substantial evidence was presented in court
connecting him to the principal murder weapon, the .223 rifle. Peltier has entered several appeals. All have been denied by various courts. The U.S. Supreme Court has on two occasions
refused to hear his appeals.

Peltier now
holds hope that he will be pardoned by President Obama. Many experts consider this a realistic
possibility. Peltier, surprisingly in my
opinion, has received the backing of several celebrities. I will talk more about this.

Three Laws for Effective Gun Control

Here are three potential laws that I would recommend for effective gun control:

1) Convicted felon in possession of a gun: automatic three years in prison - no judicial discretion - no chance for parole.

2) Knowingly selling or furnishing a gun to a convicted felon: automatic three years in prison - no judicial discretion - no chance for parole.

3) Theft of a gun, during the commission of a felony: automatic three years in prison - no judicial discretion - no chance for parole - sentence in addition to any time associated with the attendant felony.